Why would you do one (a full overhaul)?
Just see what needs attention and fix that.
A field overhaul will always cost as much as you are willing to spend, i.e. depends on what you want overhauled and/or replaced.
However, I think that a remanufactured exchange engine (incl. accessories) would cost way more. If your core is good, then I would guess 55k€ when everything is paid and done, even at today’s exchange rates.
Yes, of course you are right – I would NOT do a full overhaul, but I would CALCULATE the price for a full overhaul to find the right price for the plane. Becasue if it is 55 K, then the plane is too expensive, becasue witha TBO of 2000 h the engine is not woth much anymore – ON THE MARKET! I would buy such a plane if the price was right. I think you have to compare this price with the price of a 2001 G1 model with a NEW engine, and then check again …
Repaired the link in prev post …
I think times have changed in that fuel is now the dominant cost factor in the only commercially relevant flying universe (the USA).
That changes the appeal of burning 30+ USG/hr to do the claimed 200-whatever kt TAS.
Mooney sales were close to zero before they packed up.
The argument about their “cockpit layout” are a personal thing. I don’t like them, especially with the single door (and I do yoga and pilates). But lots of people do like them.
Same for the Cessna 400 – great top speed at an eye watering fuel burn. Sales? Virtually zero. List price $750k, in 2013.
As I’ve said before, I am sure Mooney will sell a small trickle, because there is always somebody who wants a new plane. Let’s face it, Cirrus didn’t build their original success on selling used planes 
I bought a new VW Scirocco. Does it make financial sense? No. But I wanted the specific spec and there were very few used ones that were significantly cheaper than the internet price (about list minus 20%, plus a further £1k off if you buy it on finance and pay off the loan after a few months 
)
Why do cirusses have a staggered wing? I always wondered.
Back on topic: Mooneys are exceptional planes and a great buy on the used market. As mentioned earlier, the whole cramped interior story people keep talking about is a bit of a myth. I’m 1.98 meters and fit easily in the front seat of a Mooney and I am moderately comfortable in the back of one (been there for up to five hours straight). Those seats recline!
Not sure if anyone is willing to buy a new acclaim or ovation, I wouldn’t for the same reason I wouldn’t buy a new car. But I sure hope they can contribute to the GA market, a little competition is a good thing.
In fact, Mooney cabins are reasonably wide (contrary to common belief).
The reason why many people feel claustrophic and uncomfortable in them is due to a) the seating poisition, b) the head being close to the panel and – most of all – c) the smallish windows.
The exact opposite is the Beech Bonanza. The cabin (again, contrary to common belief) is nominally quite narrow. But still, it has the reputation of being very comfortable. That is certainly due to its upright seating position, the giant windows and the fantatic visibility.
Hate to say it…but the Cirrus has both, a very wide cabin and fantastic visibility.
The so called “cuffed” wing is a safety feature of the Cirrus. The outer wing (including the airlerins) has a slightly lower angle of incidence and a slightly different airfoil too. This way the inner wing stalls first while the outer wing still flies. The ailerons stay effective this way when the inner wing is stalled.
That’s true: THe Cirrus has the widest cabin and very good visibility. Whats really cool is that even smaller people and kids can look over the panel from the right seat because of the way the panel/dashboard is designed.
With the Mooney, it depends. The LONGER fuselage is okay and has nice legroom in the backseat. Not so the shorter version of the fuselage!
Mooney (F model):
Bo (V35B):
See the differnce in seating position and especially the difference in how far the windows extend upward and downward.
However, both of those are single door early-1950s airframes.
The same people will like them – or not.
What models are they? I have been in a Mooney (don’t recall the type) and the seating position was very reclined. I am 1.75m so average.
I think times have changed in that fuel is now the dominant cost factor in the only commercially relevant flying universe (the USA).
That might be true in the US, but mainly I think because owners construct a non-depreciating RV for $70K, do maintenance as required (on a continuous basis) and pencil whip their own annuals. Or they buy a $35K, 900 hr TT certified aircraft like somebody I know. Fuel cost at $50/hr then becomes a significant fraction of the total ownership cost, which might be $6000/year total before fuel.
OTOH If a buyer prepared to pay $20K/year in depreciation, cost of money, insurance etc for a $200-300K aircraft, fuel at any number of gallons/hour is not so much of an issue.
I did the same as Peter and his Scirocco when buying my last two new Japanese cars. Made much discounted deals without ever leaving home. For the last one the dealer told me he’d appreciate it if I waited two months before paying off the incentivized loan – because he gets a hit from the finance company too. I run them from new to outrageous mileages, then toss ’em. Cars are appliances today.
PS An ergonomic issue with newer Bonanzas is the oval cabin roof cross-section, which causes the taller among us to fly along with head in a 30 degree bank. I think the older Bonanzas are probably better, because of lower seats.
Guys, relax. I just said Mooney makes Airplanes again, not that it will kick Cirrus out of the market… nobody believes that nor would it be desireable. but, comperition is beneficial for the market.
As some of you know, my flight surgeon considers me obese and I am 1,88m tall. (I should be 2,34 to fit my weight but that is another story :-) )
And my airplane is a short body “C” model. I have to say that for me, I sit better than in a pa28 and have more space for my legs than in the Cessna I used to fly. What takes getting used to is sitting closer than normal to the panel. and I have a payload which is close to a cherokee 180.
But all that is beyond the point. Mooney was never in it for the family van. Mooney is about efficiency and speed per hp. that is why it is not surprising that the models selling most were the C and the 201 aka J .
That is why I never was excited about the Ovation and Acclaom, superb planes they are. Mooney is for folks who can`t shell out 17 gph but still want to fly fast and far. A Mooney is affordable for folks who can never afford a Cirrus nor a Bonnie with their partsnbills and consumptions.
That is why I believe Mooney went wrong when they abandoned the 200hp line. and that is why we need it back.
